Vol. 15 · pages 851–855

SECTION VII TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES 44. Thanks on address by the President … 835-840 45. Budget (General) 1952-53 General Discussion 841-850 46. Andhra State Bill, 1953 … 851-864 47. Estate Duty Bill, 1953 … 865-873 48. International Situation … 874-886 49. Government order on Bank Disputes … 887-894 50. Report of Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Tribes for 1953 … 895-918 51. Constitution (Third Amendment) Bill, 1954 … 919-924 52. Untouchability Offences Bill, 1954 … 925-943 53. Constitution (Fourth amendment) Bill, 1954 … 944-961 54. States Reorganisation Bill, 1956 … 962-973 55. Obituaries reference—Demise of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar … 974-983

835PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (44) THANKS ON ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT *Mr. Chairman : All I can say is that there are certain amendments which by no stretch of imagination can be brought under discussion of matters referred to in the President’s Address. There are certain questions like food production, land revenue, foreign policy and preventive detention which are referred to in the President’s Address and the amendments which have a bearing on them may be moved. Shri H. P. Saksena (Uttar Pradesh) : Have all the amendments that have been presented been admitted or not ? Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay) : The procedure followed in the Provisional Parliament was this. Perhaps it is not a new thing. It is going on for the last two or three years since the Constitution has come into operation. As far as I remember— there are many Members of the Lower House; they will correct me—the procedure followed by the Speaker of the House of the People was that he would allow all the amendments to be moved in the beginning. Of course, those were amendments that could be admitted. Subsequently, he called upon the proposer of the different amendments to make speeches in support of their amendments. It was always understood that because a person has moved his amendment, he necessarily will not have any right to speak. But the Speaker, out of consideration for the fact that certain gentlemen had indicated their intention to move an amendment, did allow them a chance of making a speech. That was the procedure that he adopted. I think the same procedure might be adopted here also. With regard to one other observation, I should like to say with the deepest respect that in making the reference to what * Parliamentary Debates (Council of States) Vol. I,’ 19th May 1952, pp. 81-83.

836 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES happens in the House of Commons, you indicated that only those amendments which refer to subjects which have been expressly mentioned in the Address of the President would be admitted. With all respect I think that the rule ought to be the other way round. The purport of a debate on the Address is this. Government is pleased to inform the House, through the Address of the President, the subjects to which they allot what may be called priority or urgency. Article 87 of the Constitution of India says that the purport of the debate on the Address of the President is to inform Parliament of the causes of its summons. The purport of the Debate on the Address is to let the Opposition tell the Government what are the purposes which they ought to have included. Therefore, any subject which is not included in the Address of the President, for that very reason becomes a matter of urgency, because, Members of the Opposition may feel that Government has given priority and urgency to matters which they think important but which, in the opinion of the Opposition, are less important than other matters. Secondly, I submit that merely because an amendment refers to a subject which has not been referred to in the Address of the President, it should not on that account be ruled out. But the Opposition should be given an opportunity to discuss and to place before Government any particular subject, which is the subject matter of the amendment, as a matter of urgency which must be given priority over subjects which have been spoken of by the President in his Address. I thought I should make these observations so that you might be in a position to regulate the procedure about the amendments. The LEADER of the COUNCIL (Shri N. Gopalswami): I greatly sympathise with the point of view which has been urged by my hon. friend Dr. Ambedkar ………… Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Nobody is “Honourable” in this House any longer. Shri N. Gopalswami : I referred to him as “my hon. friend”. That is not taboo.